If you can't see how the game has improved since 1992 then there really is no helping you.

So you honestly think the games improved on the pitch? Im not talking about crowds,financially etc.Back in the day we had greats that will be remembered forever.How many of todays stars will be remembered tomkins? I would sooner watch the great wigan of old than the present wigan.Now that was a team.

So you honestly think the games improved on the pitch? Im not talking about crowds,financially etc.Back in the day we had greats that will be remembered forever.How many of todays stars will be remembered tomkins?

The game is infinitely better. The players are bigger, faster, stronger, better conditioned and just as skilful. They are full time athletes for goodness sake.

The game is infinitely better. The players are bigger, faster, stronger, better conditioned and just as skilful. They are full time athletes for goodness sake.

Yeah they are but i would rather watch the old wigan than the present one. What does that say for our sport? IMO the players that play today are not as good as the past players and they are payed a lot more today too.Ever since SL as started how many players would you put in the hall of fame compared to past years? The players today could'nt lace hanley's,edwards and schofields shoes and i could name a lot more to that list too.

Yes, teams are better organised and structured and coaches are of a higher technical ability.
Yes, defensive patterns are more structured and the same is true for the offense (much more use of decoy & dummy runners close to the game line) to counter the improved defense
Yes, the ball is in play a bit more and players are more powerful.

However,
If there are better half-backs than 2 from Edwards/Gregory & Schofield, I've yet to see them
If there are better and closer games/series than in 1990 and the Old Trafford game where Ricky Stuart scored late on and we were very close to an Ashes win, then I've been out of the country. (Also 3 tests watched by 133,700 fans, now 70,000 fans is deemed to be good)

The game is infinitely better. The players are bigger, faster, stronger, better conditioned and just as skilful. They are full time athletes for goodness sake.

Don't really want to get into the wider debate but on a narrow point im interested in the faster bit. My perception certainly so far as backs are concernced is the opposite. Did the players of 20 yrs ago just seem quicker to me because i was smaller then?

In the past 20 years the Aussies haven't had anyone better in the 1, 6, 7 and 9 positions than Slater, Lockyear, Thurston and Smith.

GB/England hasn't had anyone close in the 6 and 7 positions to Gregory and Schofield. Roby is probably the equal of any 9 form the past 20 years and Tomkins equal to any 1 (bar the high ball).

However, its the difference between us and the Aussies in 1, 6, 7, and 9 as indivual players as well combined skills (the sum being greater than the individual parts) and team direction where we are also so far behind.

Seeing as no GB player from any recent era have actually beaten the Aussies, why is one claimed to be better than the other? I'm not saying they were no good or anything like that but ATEOTD they still lost, so why are they regarded as greats?

Yeah they are but i would rather watch the old wigan than the present one. What does that say for our sport? IMO the players that play today are not as good as the past players and they are payed a lot more today too.Ever since SL as started how many players would you put in the hall of fame compared to past years? The players today could'nt lace hanley's,edwards and schofields shoes and i could name a lot more to that list too.

With respect, that says more about you than it does the sport. You are pining for a day when the league was a rainy, muddy mess played in glorified cowsheds by part-time players with part-time fitness and part-time attitudes, completely dominated by one full-time club. The game was littered with a few genuinely talented stars I will concede that, but a golden era for the game it most certainly was not.

Those 4 clubs already had good fanbases/latent fanbases and were clearly SL-ready, which is the reason they attracted investment to begin with. Your argument is cart before horse.

The biggest clubs remaining outside of SL are not of the same stature and/or operate in a saturated market. If SL wants to bring in P&R and just constantly shuffle its pack at the bottom end that's a sure fire recipe for indifference and stagnation for the sport. Fact is, 3 of those clubs are in any case at best "middle market" sides and anything but assured SL players. Only Catalan are anywhere near GF contention. They shouldn't be held up as examples, they're teams that SL needs to try to reinforce rather than terrify into overspending/chaos by virtue of reinstating the dreaded trap door.

You just can't be serious in that first paragraph. Hull KR were in CC1 on crowds of 1300 in a dying stadium when hudgell came in. Ready for SL, you must be delirious.

Widnes were in CC having gone bankrupt and with a poor team and low attendances when O'Connor came calling. SL ready, really.

Huddersfield were on middle 1500 crowds in CC when Davey joined the party.

Catalans did not even exist. They had still to amalgamate St Esteve and the Perpignan Catalan team to create what is now the Catalan Dragons and they had no intention of doing anything like that until they were granted a licence and given a guaranteed spot three years into the future to prepare for SL. Is that what you call ready and waiting.

So now you are dealing in latent fan bases. Fine then Halifax, Featherstone and even Leigh and Barrow have latent fan bases.How do you know they cannot convert that latency into actuality if they are given the chance at the top. Wakefield were on crowds of 1500 prior to their promotion to SL, lower than Fev and Halifax are curently. So were Hull KR and Huddersfield and London's crowds were in the hundreds before they were anointed to SL.

With respect, that says more about you than it does the sport. You are pining for a day when the league was a rainy, muddy mess played in glorified cowsheds by part-time players with part-time fitness and part-time attitudes, completely dominated by one full-time club. The game was littered with a few genuinely talented stars I will concede that, but a golden era for the game it most certainly was not.

Tomkins, Hall and Watkins - in fact the whole squad if they win the big one next year - Have potential to become hall of famers.

EDIT - Shoddy spelling...

Gav I'm not all one sided in this debate it's just my opinion. But I will add a point to your side too the players of today are all full time players so to stand out today is a lot harder than back then when you had players at different fitness levels etc. But i personally think that if the past players were in today's game they would stand out a lot more than the present players do. But like I said that's just my opinion. But I do think P and R needs to come back to help our game move forward. I will admit their needs to be a very good way of reintroducing it though. Which I think the 2 tier SL option would be the best way as long as their isn't too much difference in salary caps so we won't still have the gulf between the leagues.

Great player that Andy Gregory was - and I watched him at his peak both for Wigan and GB, he wouldn't last a full game if he was playing today. He would not be fit enough, even with the rests he'd get in the sin bin - assuming he didn't get sent off!

Great player that Andy Gregory was - and I watched him at his peak both for Wigan and GB, he wouldn't last a full game if he was playing today. He would not be fit enough, even with the rests he'd get in the sin bin - assuming he didn't get sent off!

I also struggle to class a player as a legend when he can't even pass both ways, which was not uncommon in those days.